Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is excellent news! Alex Jones and Milo are both nutjobs. They prey on the low-IQ, uneducated right-wing nut jobs to spread their hatred and fake news/false information.
Farrakhan is a nut job, too. He hates gays and he hates jews. Sounds pretty right-wing to me.
I guess in a world where you can redefine anything you want, to mean whatever you want it to mean, Farrakhan can be right wing.
But in this world, he hangs with the Obamas, the head of the Democratic National Committee, and a bunch of US congressmen that are ALL democrats.
And your new, freshmen, anti Semitic, democratic congresswomen have ties to him as well.
Just proving once again that you are about as “neutral” as he is.
Facebook and social media and the ISP giants worked to silence conservative content in the 2016 election as well as to prevent grass roots efforts against Hillary. That was the real collusion.
They can't win the ideological war even with the MSM and the deep state working hand in hand with the tech giants and the Hollywood entertainment industry so now they have to silence their opponents.
Progressives are the new fascists.
Facebook can ban whomever they choose. Last time I checked, they aren't owned by the government. It's a private business and they have the right to refuse service.
It's funny, conservatives are ok with the concept that a business has the right to refuse service. However, they don't like when they are refused service. They just become like the "snowflakes" that they hate so much.
I know some conservative friends who want federal intervention about losing their venue to broadcast their voices. Why big government should get involved in a private business?
For starters, no Facebook doesn't get to ban whomever they choose if it violates their own terms of service. Their TOS is a binding obligation on BOTH parties, not just the platform users.
Second, If Facebook wants to assert the right to ban whomever they choose, then they need to abdicate their claim to being a communications platform and accept the obligations of being a content provider. That includes being liable for defamation occurring on their service, which in turn would obligate them to do a whole ton more content monitoring than they're doing now. If they don't want that burden and that liability, then no, they don't get to ban whomever they choose.
Facebook can ban whomever they choose. Last time I checked, they aren't owned by the government.
Just because they are not owned by the government doesn't mean they don't have to listen to the government. Facebook is having meeting with politicans all around the world discussing what they should censor and promote.
When conservatives talk about business being able to do what they want, they are not thinking about huge corporations that are in bed with politicans, they are thinking about small businesses following their convictions. Not just the baker, but also other things like refusing service to customers who has previously failed to pay.
Big business need to be controlled, and if you go back 5 years liberals believed it too.
Just because they are not owned by the government doesn't mean they don't have to listen to the government. Facebook is having meeting with politicans all around the world discussing what they should censor and promote.
When conservatives talk about business being able to do what they want, they are not thinking about huge corporations that are in bed with politicans, they are thinking about a small businesses following their convictions.
Big business need to be controlled, and if you go back 5 years liberals believed it too.
By its customers and the end user, not politicians.
With regards to renting a room or house or business not catering to certain customers there have been laws put in place and lawsuits formed to prevent civil rights violations. Private owners sued for civil rights violations.
Now we have the debate of Facebook a private business banning who they want , some say it is their right to ban who they want, but since freedom of speech is a civil right some could say since Facebook entered the market under speech would it fall into a civil rights violation just like a private owner of real estate not wanting to rent to a gay, or white, or black person?
Thats right. If its free to sign up and use, you might be the product.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
